Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Document the Atrocities! The American Political Media

Posts

This is based entirely on my own memory of discussions before I came to the US, but I've always been under the impression that the United States is struck by more tornadoes than the rest of the world combined.

Or perhaps, more accurately, more tornado-caused fatalities.

According to Wikipedia, Bangladesh averages more tornado fatalities than the US (recent years have been skewed by an unusual number of strikes on urban areas), but the US reports far more tornadoes than anyone else. Not sure if it is more than all others combined, though.

This was definitely something I heard about 10 years ago, if not more. On the other hand, I wasn't even aware that Bangladesh had tornadoes, so I might be the one out of the loop.

I bet there are vastly different levels of sophistication in detection and reporting that account for some of the difference.

For sure. It's pretty easy to keep track of big tornadoes (people tend to notice a mile-wide path of denuded trees and non-existent homes, no matter where you are), but the NWS has the radar techniques and resources to see tiny EF0 tornadoes and then check the ground path the next day to confirm.

I would assume many of the tornadoes in Bangladesh and the Pacific are related to tropical cyclones coming ashore, which are notoriously hard to detect.

I bet there are vastly different levels of sophistication in detection and reporting that account for some of the difference.

For sure. It's pretty easy to keep track of big tornadoes (people tend to notice a mile-wide path of denuded trees and non-existent homes, no matter where you are), but the NWS has the radar techniques and resources to see tiny EF0 tornadoes and then check the ground path the next day to confirm.

I would assume many of the tornadoes in Bangladesh and the Pacific are related to tropical cyclones coming ashore, which are notoriously hard to detect.

Bangladesh has always had tropical cyclone threats probably as far back as when it was called East Pakistan (usually called that or "typhoons"), but I always thought that was immediately distinguishable from an actual tornado.

Then again, it's all weather...water....stuff....and well over my head.

I bet there are vastly different levels of sophistication in detection and reporting that account for some of the difference.

For sure. It's pretty easy to keep track of big tornadoes (people tend to notice a mile-wide path of denuded trees and non-existent homes, no matter where you are), but the NWS has the radar techniques and resources to see tiny EF0 tornadoes and then check the ground path the next day to confirm.

I would assume many of the tornadoes in Bangladesh and the Pacific are related to tropical cyclones coming ashore, which are notoriously hard to detect.

Bangladesh has always had tropical cyclone threats probably as far back as when it was called East Pakistan (usually called that or "typhoons"), but I always thought that was immediately distinguishable from an actual tornado.

Then again, it's all weather...water....stuff....and well over my head.

What I meant is that there are usually small tornadoes (EF1-ish, but EF3 isn't unheard of) embedded into tropical cyclones. In areas with poor construction standards like Bangladesh, it would probably be very difficult to distinguish a tornado track from the general wind field and flooding damage of the cyclone.

Banglidash does get a lot of its tornadoes from tropical cyclones that make landfall on the tiny country, but they do have the proper geographical conditions that sets up a mini tornado alley in their country and so classic supercellular tornadoes are not uncommon there in a relative sense. One thing that is interesting to note is that while the US reigns king of tornadoes, the UK actually has the most tornadoes per capita of any country in the world though the vast majority are non supercellular tornadoes such as waterspouts coming ashore. South America has its own tornado alley and season as well as Australia and South Africa.

One thing that is important to note is that the old F-scale and the new EF-scale are both damage scales and in rejoins like Bangladesh it is hard for tornadoes to score on the upper end of the scale due to the lack of proper construction preventing enough sufficient damage indicators to warrant a higher rating. On top of that a much weaker tornado is more likely to cause more cases of structural loss, casualties, and fatalities due to the lack of a proper warning and watch system and proper construction techniques.

We here in the US get on average around 1000 confirmed tornadoes per year. Canada, the country with the second most typically gets around 100 confirmed tornadoes. The US does indeed have the best conditions for tornado development and even if you had the same radar and spotter/chaser networks in other countries reporting every tornado there, the US would still stay number one. That said there may actually be some places that would surpass Canada as number two but due to a lack of radars and spotters and chasers around the world many tornadoes go unrecorded.

I am a professional chaser and have been since 2005. I sell my footage to many national and local media outlets as well as some production companies and I my self have been featured or interviewed on CNN, CBN, Good Morning America, Nightline, The Weather Channel, Discovery Channel, and a plethora of local news stations across the country. In my signature bellow is the surface map and mesoscale discussion for the May 24th outbreak in Oklahoma from last year. You will also see a screen grab of my footage from that day in my signature and it is of the Chickasaw, OK EF-4.

I also chase hurricanes, large hail, ice storms, blizzards, floods, derechos, and all other forms of severe weather. I have even covered a few wild fires. Normally I post over in SE++ but I saw you guys were talking about tornadoes and thought that I would drop in to say hi. :3

I bet there are vastly different levels of sophistication in detection and reporting that account for some of the difference.

For sure. It's pretty easy to keep track of big tornadoes (people tend to notice a mile-wide path of denuded trees and non-existent homes, no matter where you are), but the NWS has the radar techniques and resources to see tiny EF0 tornadoes and then check the ground path the next day to confirm.

I would assume many of the tornadoes in Bangladesh and the Pacific are related to tropical cyclones coming ashore, which are notoriously hard to detect.

Bangladesh has always had tropical cyclone threats probably as far back as when it was called East Pakistan (usually called that or "typhoons"), but I always thought that was immediately distinguishable from an actual tornado.

Then again, it's all weather...water....stuff....and well over my head.

You are correct. Tropical cyclones and tornadoes are not seen as one and the same and are distinguishable even there. What @a5ehern was referring to, as he said in his second post, is that in non-annular tropical cyclones there can sometimes be embedded mesocyclones (rotating updraft of a storm) in the outer feeding bands of the right front quadrant of the tropical cyclone. These mesos will spawn tornadoes since the low level storm relative shear in this part of the system is favorable for tornadogenesis. These tornadoes though are typically short lived and on the lower end of the EF-scale in strength. Although rare, some notable tornado outbreaks have occurred with land falling tropical cyclones. Typically your mesocyclones will not be long lived or very deep (tall) due to the lack of adequate shear in the mid to upper levels of the system. Normally for tornadoes you want good speed and directional shear at all levels of the storm to sustain their parent supercells. Tropical cyclones on the other hand are very fragile and get torn apart at ease with very little environmental shear and thus no environmental shear is preferred.

There is also three tornado alleys in the US but the one most people think of is the one in the central plains from Texas to North Dakota. During February through mid April the "dixey alley" experiences the bulk of its tornado. This alley includes the Carolinas, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the gulf coast states. Starting as early as late March and going through June is the traditional tornado season in the traditional tornado alley. During March through June you will also see the states north of the dixey alley and east of the Mississippi River get the bulk of their severe weather with a large amount of it occurring in March, April, and in some cases, June. The three largest outbreaks of tornadoes to ever happen have actually happened out of the traditional tornado alley in this area and the latest one to hit there (the March 2nd outbreak) was the 6th largest of the decade.

No matter where you live in the US you are under the gun of the most extreme severe weather this planet has. If you aren't in tornado alley you are in the hurricane or fire weather prone areas. If farther north you face brutal ice storms and blizzards. We also have some of the worst flooding that the world sees and parts of the US is very accustom to extreme heat, cold, mudslides, and earthquakes! Really no matter where you are in the US you are under the risk of some form of extreme weather or natural disaster. Even Hawaii was under a severe thunderstorm watch today with a few nice looking supercells moving over Honolulu. It is because of that, that the US has the single best Weather Service in the world as well as the largest number of chasers and spotters and high powered weather radars. In reality the chances of you being hit by a tornado, even in tornado alley are very slim. Most of the tornado deaths in the us happen just out of tornado alley due to a lack of awareness in that part of the country, and flash flooding actually kills more people each year than tornadoes, lightning, and hail combined. Hail also typically does more damage each year than tornadoes do.

The number one reason the US is as prepared and has as good of a warning system as it does is because of the storm chasers and spotters on the ground. We see what a radar cannot see or confirm and cover the gaps in the radar coverage. If you want to know any more or have any other weather related questions just ask!

For years, NPR committed itself to a brand of journalism that often focused not on telling the truth, but on telling competing sides of a story.
This false journalistic balance – presenting two sides of a story even when one side is propped up by spin or compromised facts – has been a hallmark of NPR's reportage on political matters both foreign and domestic for far too long.

However, as journalism scholar and critic Jay Rosen reports, NPR has formally disavowed this form of "he said, she said" journalism in favor of a journalism that is "fair to the truth."

As Rosen notes, NPR last week replaced its old code, The NPR Code of Ethics and Practices, with a new ethics handbook that seems to direct journalists to abandon reportage that strives for balance at the cost of accuracy.

NPR [now] commits itself as an organization to avoid the worst excesses of “he said, she said” journalism. It says to itself that a report characterized by false balance is a false report. It introduces a new and potentially powerful concept of fairness: being “fair to the truth,” which as we know is not always evenly distributed among the sides in a public dispute.
Maintaining the “appearance of balance” isn’t good enough, NPR says. “If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side…” we have to say so. When we are spun, we don’t just report it. “We tell our audience…” This is spin!

There was nothing like that in the old Code of Ethics and Practices.

Indeed, several sections in NPR's new ethics handbook speak to this new commitment to serve not balance but accuracy. Among those is this sparkling example:
At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.
Already, some NPR journalists are grappling with this new code of ethics and how, exactly, their reportage will fit (or not) into the new guideline to be "impartial" and "fair to the truth."
And already, listeners – including myself – have noticed NPR journalists being a bit more dogged about calling out dubious facts when they are presented by advocates for a particular side of a story.

Will this new ethics handbook adopted by NPR usher in a radical shift in its reportage – a shift desperately needed and, perhaps, inspired by the rise of so-called new media? Time will tell.

Though taking the new handbook at its word – as well as NPR's ostensibly new commitment to reporting the truth of a story rather than presenting competing sides of a story – it seems the answer is a resounding yes.

EDIT: Huh, NPR certainly had a tradition of wanting to give both sides of the story, for better or worse--though they happily ignored it during the 2008 Ossetian War. Guess that's the exception that proves the rule.

The Washington Post continues to be incredibly stupid. Obama raising 45 million, mostly from people who can contribute again because they're not rich is... good news for John McCain Mitt Romney!

Do they not get that people who contribute money to a campaign, have a greater incentive to vote in the election? Also do they not get that those people could contribute money later on, since we're like 8 months out from the election and they aren't barred from splitting up contributions?

The Washington Post continues to be incredibly stupid. Obama raising 45 million, mostly from people who can contribute again because they're not rich is... good news for John McCain Mitt Romney!

Do they not get that people who contribute money to a campaign, have a greater incentive to vote in the election? Also do they not get that those people could contribute money later on, since we're like 8 months out from the election and they aren't barred from splitting up contributions?

Those are the *wrong* kinds of people. Ordinary people shouldn't have a say, it should only be the rich.

What kind of child, upon hearing their elderly mother had severely hurt herself and refused to see a doctor, wouldn't just DRAG her to a damn doctor. She was 86, it's not like she's going to overpower someone.

Fox News, reprehensible as they are, didn't spend ten days failing to get her medical attention, her loved ones and/or caretakers did.

-edit-

I found this line from her obituary odd.

Jack pre-deceased Hallie as did their son, Gary.

Pre-deceased? Is that a thing now?

MuddBudd on March 2012

0

Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular

What kind of child, upon hearing their elderly mother had severely hurt herself and refused to see a doctor, wouldn't just DRAG her to a damn doctor. She was 86, it's not like she's going to overpower someone.

Fox News, reprehensible as they are, didn't spend ten days failing to get her medical attention, her loved ones and/or caretakers did.

-edit-

I found this line from her obituary odd.

Jack pre-deceased Hallie as did their son, Gary.

Pre-deceased? Is that a thing now?

Well for one thing, it doesn't appear he has a medical power of attorney. Were he to 'drag her to a damn doctor' the doctor probably wouldn't treat her based on the fact that she didn't want to be treated.

And if he were to 'drag her to a damn doctor' he is technically guilty of kidnapping.

At the same time, this is a supposedly intelligent woman. If she chooses to believe the filth that Fox news spews forth and not seek treatment... well, that's her fault. I come up against this very thing all the time at work.

About two years ago I was called to an older gentlemen who's wife called because he was having chest pain and shortness of breath. I get there and do an EKG, he's having a MASSIVE anterior wall heart attack. He has no intention of going to the hospital. I literally told him "If we leave, in less than 12 hours I'm going to be back out here because you are going to die. Do you understand that?" He understood.. he was awake, alert and could make his own medical decisions. He had no terminal medical conditions at all. I tried everything; including calling family to try and talk him in to going. He had no suicidal intentions, he simply despised physicians and hospitals. I recorded everything I said via our dispatch center (to legally cover MY ass should his family sue) as to what I explained would happen. If I had picked him up and taken him to the hospital against his wishes you can bet I would have been arrested for kidnapping and assault (because of the invasive procedures I would have done).

Had I kidnapped him, once we arrived at the hospital and he wouldn't have signed the consent form and they would have discharged him.

What kind of child, upon hearing their elderly mother had severely hurt herself and refused to see a doctor, wouldn't just DRAG her to a damn doctor. She was 86, it's not like she's going to overpower someone.

Fox News, reprehensible as they are, didn't spend ten days failing to get her medical attention, her loved ones and/or caretakers did.

-edit-

I found this line from her obituary odd.

Jack pre-deceased Hallie as did their son, Gary.

Pre-deceased? Is that a thing now?

Well for one thing, it doesn't appear he has a medical power of attorney. Were he to 'drag her to a damn doctor' the doctor probably wouldn't treat her based on the fact that she didn't want to be treated.

And if he were to 'drag her to a damn doctor' he is technically guilty of kidnapping.

At the same time, this is a supposedly intelligent woman. If she chooses to believe the filth that Fox news spews forth and not seek treatment... well, that's her fault. I come up against this very thing all the time at work.

About two years ago I was called to an older gentlemen who's wife called because he was having chest pain and shortness of breath. I get there and do an EKG, he's having a MASSIVE anterior wall heart attack. He has no intention of going to the hospital. I literally told him "If we leave, in less than 12 hours I'm going to be back out here because you are going to die. Do you understand that?" He understood.. he was awake, alert and could make his own medical decisions. He had no terminal medical conditions at all. I tried everything; including calling family to try and talk him in to going. He had no suicidal intentions, he simply despised physicians and hospitals. I recorded everything I said via our dispatch center (to legally cover MY ass should his family sue) as to what I explained would happen. If I had picked him up and taken him to the hospital against his wishes you can bet I would have been arrested for kidnapping and assault (because of the invasive procedures I would have done).

Had I kidnapped him, once we arrived at the hospital and he wouldn't have signed the consent form and they would have discharged him.

Her pleas of "I don't want Obamacare to steal my info and give my money to the Muslim Brotherhood" doesn't jibe with his laments that "my mother wasn't some ignorant hick."

I got news for everyone: HIPAA doesn't pertain to medical staff if you're under their care. If you've ever received medical care, they already have your information. You do not have the right of privacy w/r/t your medical history when you're relying on appropriate treatment from medical professionals.

What kind of child, upon hearing their elderly mother had severely hurt herself and refused to see a doctor, wouldn't just DRAG her to a damn doctor. She was 86, it's not like she's going to overpower someone.

Fox News, reprehensible as they are, didn't spend ten days failing to get her medical attention, her loved ones and/or caretakers did.

-edit-

I found this line from her obituary odd.

Jack pre-deceased Hallie as did their son, Gary.

Pre-deceased? Is that a thing now?

Well for one thing, it doesn't appear he has a medical power of attorney. Were he to 'drag her to a damn doctor' the doctor probably wouldn't treat her based on the fact that she didn't want to be treated.

And if he were to 'drag her to a damn doctor' he is technically guilty of kidnapping.

At the same time, this is a supposedly intelligent woman. If she chooses to believe the filth that Fox news spews forth and not seek treatment... well, that's her fault. I come up against this very thing all the time at work.

About two years ago I was called to an older gentlemen who's wife called because he was having chest pain and shortness of breath. I get there and do an EKG, he's having a MASSIVE anterior wall heart attack. He has no intention of going to the hospital. I literally told him "If we leave, in less than 12 hours I'm going to be back out here because you are going to die. Do you understand that?" He understood.. he was awake, alert and could make his own medical decisions. He had no terminal medical conditions at all. I tried everything; including calling family to try and talk him in to going. He had no suicidal intentions, he simply despised physicians and hospitals. I recorded everything I said via our dispatch center (to legally cover MY ass should his family sue) as to what I explained would happen. If I had picked him up and taken him to the hospital against his wishes you can bet I would have been arrested for kidnapping and assault (because of the invasive procedures I would have done).

Had I kidnapped him, once we arrived at the hospital and he wouldn't have signed the consent form and they would have discharged him.

I guess I can see that. It boggles the mind, however.

Consent is kind of an important issue.

0

Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular

Her pleas of "I don't want Obamacare to steal my info and give my money to the Muslim Brotherhood" doesn't jibe with his laments that "my mother wasn't some ignorant hick."

I got news for everyone: HIPAA doesn't pertain to medical staff if you're under their care. If you've ever received medical care, they already have your information. You do not have the right of privacy w/r/t your medical history when you're relying on appropriate treatment from medical professionals.

When I worked in the "No. Fuck off" department at a health insurance company a crazy old bitch wrote to the president of the company shocked that a third party medical center had black people working there AND her social security number! She was afraid that the blacks would steal her social (Because you know how they are )

She demanded the social security numbers of everyone that had access to her social security number at the medical center (which we did not own).

I sent her the stock "No. Fuck off" template response and a copy of the company newsletter that had a huge fuckoff picture of the black dude she wrote the letter to.

Her pleas of "I don't want Obamacare to steal my info and give my money to the Muslim Brotherhood" doesn't jibe with his laments that "my mother wasn't some ignorant hick."

I got news for everyone: HIPAA doesn't pertain to medical staff if you're under their care. If you've ever received medical care, they already have your information. You do not have the right of privacy w/r/t your medical history when you're relying on appropriate treatment from medical professionals.

I guess growing up in a medical family makes this like second nature to me. But really? Is it really that much of a shock that your doctors will have your information?